I have strong feelings about the way my brother and his partner are raising their child. They have chosen to forgo all vaccines (my brother says they are “bad medicines that make you sick”), they are home-schooling their child, who behaves in age-inappropriate ways, and they never seem to say the word “no.” I believe my brother knows my opinions on child rearing, but we have never discussed them at length. Do I have a moral obligation to vocalize my views on the off chance that doing so might have a salutatory effect? Name Withheld
The results of home schooling depend on the quality of the schooling. (And no, being schooled at home, as many schoolchildren are these days, isn’t the same as being home-schooled.) But it sounds as if one thing that has motivated this and other choices your brother has made is a broader alienation from mainstream thought. He probably believes that public education poisons the mind, the way standard medicine poisons the body. And it can be exceedingly difficult to persuade people who distrust the experts to change their views.
The typical way you win an argument about an empirical matter is by enlisting the collective authority of professional expertise. I’m continually learning that various empirical beliefs of mine are defective. If I assert that the earth is three billion years old, you can easily set me straight: Show that the scientific consensus pegs it at around 4.5 billion years, and I’ll update my beliefs. Such disagreements are easily settled. It’s as if you’re opening the Encyclopedia of Consensus Knowledge to Page 1,043 and saying, “Look.”
This doesn’t work with epistemic dissidents. Whether they fixate on climate change, the moon landing or vaccines, they distrust authority, including scientific authority. (Maybe they think that the medical establishment has been suborned by big pharma or bamboozled by ideology.) They know that beliefs have changed in the past and think they have a special insight into which of our current mainstream beliefs are the next to go. They have invariably rabbit-holed into a detailed counterreality. We roll up with our big, dumb encyclopedia, triumphantly tap on a page with a stubby finger — and they roll their eyes. “Oh, that book of lies?”
The situation is different, by the way, with people who are merely “vaccine hesitant”; they’ve been spooked by terrifying stories encountered online, but if a trustworthy professional answers their questions and discusses their worries with patience and respect, they can come around. It would seem, however, that your brother is long past this point — that he has a whole self-confirming worldview.
You wonder whether you should express your opinions on the off chance it would change things for the better. Well, you know your brother. It’s hard to imagine, though, that he would change his position about matters like these on the basis of a couple of casual observations, even if they come from a loving sibling. You could commit to a long series of conversations in which you heard him out and offered him evidence and arguments that he’s not doing what’s best for his child. But even if he were game for this, I’m not terribly optimistic about the outcome.
A sturdier argument for speaking up would simply be to clear the air, so that your relations with your niece or nephew’s parents are based on an honest recognition of your disagreements. That’s a reason to make your views clear, however blinkered your brother. But do so with caution. He could very well decide to shut you out. And this might be a problem for your niece or nephew: In the long run, having a sane uncle in her or his life — someone able to provide a vantage point outside the paranoia of the parents — could be of great value to that child.
I teach at a small private college in the Pacific Northwest. Two of my office mates have very dismissive attitudes about the outbreak of coronavirus. When the school was still open, they mocked news coverage, spouted bizarre conspiracy theories and generally denied the severity of this virus. This was done not only in my presence but in the presence of students. When I was alone with them and was asked for my opinion, I pretended that I was not hearing what I couldn’t believe I was hearing. (Pretty chicken, I know!) I didn’t want to get into a heated debate with my co-workers. Nor did I want to listen to them. But the pressing issue for me was that they were airing these views when students were present. Should I have rocked the boat to raise my concerns? Or, and this is entirely possible, was I just overreacting? Name Withheld
I know I’ve just had my say on epistemic dissidents, but I’ve got more to say still. In the past several weeks, tens of thousands of Americans have died from Covid-19; we’re surpassing the numbers of Americans who perished in the Vietnam War over the course of a decade. Scoffing at the threat has made a mortal difference. With less scoffing, federal and state officials might have acted earlier and lives could have been saved. (Of course, if the officials had succeeded in minimizing the damage, the scoffers would have concluded that they were right.)
Unless the right policies are kept in place, moreover, the incidence of illness and death associated with the pandemic may well rise again. It matters whether people take the issue seriously. All of which is to say: No, you weren’t overreacting.
Let me mention, too, that the social dimension of denialism and conspiracy mongering is critical. The internet has accelerated the spread of absurd theories, but these are a continuation of the sort of daft rumors that have always circulated in human communities. All great human cognitive tools — and language is among the greatest of them — bring enormous benefits; all have been put to bad uses. In his classic three-volume work of 1841, “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,” Charles Mackay observed, “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” Spoken, written, printed and digital messages are what make the madness possible. But it’s language that makes the recovery possible, too.
The students would have been well served by learning this. As a teacher, you might have wanted to speak up when there were students around, make counterarguments and so, at least, convey your disapproval. And, if you were going to do that, you might as well have taken heart and begun to reject the nonsense when it was just the three of you. It might have chilled the atmosphere, but impeding the flow of pernicious nonsense sometimes requires a drop in the temperature.
I may (marginally) improve my chances of surviving Covid-19 if I get a pneumococcal vaccine. (I have several risk factors that put me at heightened risk of death if I contract the coronavirus, and there is a small chance of fatal secondary bacterial pneumonia.) But public-health officials recommend avoiding the doctor’s office in order to keep the rate of infection down. I have been self-isolating and will continue to self-isolate after this visit; moreover, I have scheduled the very first appointment of the day in order to minimize my contact with other patients. Am I very wrong for doing this? Name Withheld
The rationale for self-isolation is that a lot of small chances for individuals can add up to a big risk for the community. If what you’re doing is wrong, what’s wrong isn’t that it poses a serious risk to others (or yourself); it’s that you’re taking advantage of those who are contributing to “flattening the curve” by forgoing trips like these. This is a practice that benefits us all, and each of us ought to bear his or her fair share of its costs.
The right course of action for you depends on medical facts specific to your case. It’s for your doctor, not me, to decide whether it’s appropriate for you to venture out and get this vaccine. (Much rests on the question of how small this “small chance” is.) All I can tell you is that this decision must be made within the broader ethical context I’ve just sketched. It can’t be reduced to the question of individual risk, incurred or extended. Ethically as well as epidemiologically, we’re in this together.
"right" - Google News
May 05, 2020 at 04:02PM
https://ift.tt/3c6dMLr
My Brother Isn’t Raising His Child Right. Should I Speak Up? - The New York Times
"right" - Google News
https://ift.tt/32Okh02
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "My Brother Isn’t Raising His Child Right. Should I Speak Up? - The New York Times"
Post a Comment